Red Dead Redemption 2 - now available on PC

[Makabb]

I look at the trailer and don't feel much in the field of interest or hype. Not only I am sure they will go down the same path as in GTAV where all the new content was focused on the MP, but they did the whole "old west dying" meme again. I wanted to something interesting, like fighting indians or dealing with civil war stuff. The best example I can think of is The good, the bad and the ugly where you see main characters running around in the middle of the war and shit.
Well, I just hope I can bang the cowgirl and keep her alive afterwards.

The stuff from the demo IGN saw already makes this one sound like it'll be more than a tutorial for the online mode like GTAV ultimately ended up being. All the stuff with how NPCs react to you, how you can interact with NPCs, the new horse system, and the interactions you can have with your gang (especially the gang one) seem like shit you wouldn't do if you were focused on the multiplayer to the detriment of single player like GTAV was.

That's the butthurters who don't have a console are talking....... I DON'T HAVE A CONSOLE SO IT WILL SUXXXXXXXX WAAAAHHHHHH WAHHHHHHHH LOL LOL

 

[Tovias]

The stuff from the demo IGN saw already makes this one sound like it'll be more than a tutorial for the online mode like GTAV ultimately ended up being. All the stuff with how NPCs react to you, how you can interact with NPCs, the new horse system, and the interactions you can have with your gang (especially the gang one) seem like shit you wouldn't do if you were focused on the multiplayer to the detriment of single player like GTAV was.

What you say makes sense but keep in mind that all the stuff you mention could also be used in MP content, so it's not something exclusive of SP content.

 

[Lexx]

I look at the trailer and don't feel much in the field of interest or hype. Not only I am sure they will go down the same path as in GTAV where all the new content was focused on the MP, but they did the whole "old west dying" meme again. I wanted to something interesting, like fighting indians or dealing with civil war stuff. The best example I can think of is The good, the bad and the ugly where you see main characters running around in the middle of the war and shit.
Well, I just hope I can bang the cowgirl and keep her alive afterwards.

The stuff from the demo IGN saw already makes this one sound like it'll be more than a tutorial for the online mode like GTAV ultimately ended up being. All the stuff with how NPCs react to you, how you can interact with NPCs, the new horse system, and the interactions you can have with your gang (especially the gang one) seem like shit you wouldn't do if you were focused on the multiplayer to the detriment of single player like GTAV was.

Personally, it reminds me a bit of the hub system in The Division. Maybe with more character interaction, etc. but it might (or might not) be kinda similar from a mechanical point of view: Collect resources to upgrade your "base", which also works as a central point for starting a multiplayer match.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The stuff from the demo IGN saw already makes this one sound like it'll be more than a tutorial for the online mode like GTAV ultimately ended up being. All the stuff with how NPCs react to you, how you can interact with NPCs, the new horse system, and the interactions you can have with your gang (especially the gang one) seem like shit you wouldn't do if you were focused on the multiplayer to the detriment of single player like GTAV was.

What you say makes sense but keep in mind that all the stuff you mention could also be used in MP content, so it's not something exclusive of SP content.

Yeah, it could be. Although the horse system doesn't seem like something you'd think up for multiplayer. I'd imagine for multiplayer you'd want people building stables of horses that can be called on whenever so to allows players to spend more on them, but this has you focusing on just one horse that you have to keep with you and that's gone if it dies. Now maybe they won't do that in multiplayer, but it seems like something designed with single player in mind; as opposed to GTAV with its unflappable cars, which seems like something designed for multiplayer, because you wouldn't want people spending real money on a car that they flip and blow up accidentally.

Personally, it reminds me a bit of the hub system in The Division. Maybe with more character interaction, etc. but it might (or might not) be kinda similar from a mechanical point of view: Collect resources to upgrade your "base", which also works as a central point for starting a multiplayer match.

I've not played The Division so I don't know how that aspect works. But the gang stuff here just sounds like it's to build relationships with NPCs you you can take on missions with you. Unless everyone gets their own gang in the multiplayer that they do heist with, that part of the game is probably something the multiplayer will be missing altogether.

 

[kalganoat]

T2 believes their games are not monetized enough so you bet rdr2 will have a large online focus. Hell they probably delayed it to add more mp and mtx shit.

 

[Stella Brando]

Is this how Red Dead Redemption's America looks?

 

[Stella Brando]

Oh man, reading some of the discussion around the internet right now is giving me a headache.

People seem to be seriously discussing how Rockstar will stop players leaving the RDR2 map and heading back into RDR1.

(Never mind that the new map is completely, deliberately surrounded by mountains and deep water.)

Suggestions include:

• An invisible wall prevents you walking the wrong way, ala Skyrim.

• You can reach the old map, but you are immediately chased by cavalry.

• Lawmen will sneak up behind you and an arrest cut-scene plays.

• The rivers are filled with man-eating fish.

• You are swept over a huge waterfall.

No one seems to be asking: Why would Rockstar go to the trouble of rebuilding Red Dead 1 inside Red Dead 2, just to stop you exploring it?

The solution seems to be simple:

• Don't spend hundreds of hours recreating maps from previous games.

• Make sure part of the map is bordered by huge, Rocky-like Mountains (We've already seen this is true from trailers).

• Just make sure there's no bridges over the outside rivers and Arthur isn't much of a swimmer.

Voila, you have an inescapable map.

 

[Trash]

People are stupid, Stalin. Especially kids and teenagers. More news at 11.

 

[Morgoth]

http://www.shacknews.com/article/10...-to-pc-according-to-this-programmers-linkedin

The Leeds guys are responsible for all the R* PC ports, so it seems an inevitability.

 

[GrainWetski]

Pretty obvious. They aren't Atlus, they're not going to give up millions and millions of dollars for no reason.

 

[Cromwell]

Pretty obvious. They aren't Atlus, they're not going to give up millions and millions of dollars for no reason.

like they did with the first one?

 

[GrainWetski]

Pretty obvious. They aren't Atlus, they're not going to give up millions and millions of dollars for no reason.

like they did with the first one?

That was long before GTA V. ~10 million copies(+ all the GTA online crap) might be chump change to Rockstar, but it's still 100s of millions of dollars.

 

[Oracsbox]

 

[DalekFlay]

Pretty obvious. They aren't Atlus, they're not going to give up millions and millions of dollars for no reason.

like they did with the first one?

That was long before GTA V. ~10 million copies(+ all the GTA online crap) might be chump change to Rockstar, but it's still 100s of millions of dollars.

Hell I'm still hoping for a quickie port of the original. It'd sell tons of copies on Steam at $20-30. Won't happen, to be clear. I know that. But REBELLIONS WERE BUILT ON HOPE!

 

[Makabb]

Sounds bretty gud if all of this is true

 

[Ash]

Probably an advertising plant.

"May change gaming forever"

Making games more boring than ever. They've gotten pretty good at that, as has the rest of the industry.

 

[Socur Toxanarosa]

Probably an advertising plant.

"May change gaming forever"

Making games more boring than ever. They've gotten pretty good at that, as has the rest of the industry.

Red Dead Redemption is the best game of all time, so, i have hope.

 

[Beastro]

Sounds bretty gud if all of this is true

That is adorable coming from you.

 

[Kem0sabe]

This game will be fucking awesome. The only worry I have is that Rockstar will abandon support for the single player like they did with GTA.

 

[Astral Rag]

I wonder how they're going to milk the sheeples this time around. For some reason they are still playing GTA V's cheater and microtransaction infested MP.

 

[†††]

oh yes, this industry has taught me that unfettered hype is a good thing (and that's OK!)

 

[Paul_cz]

I wonder how they're going to milk the sheeples this time around. For some reason they are still playing GTA V's cheater and microtransaction infested MP.

1) by pretending PC version does not exist until months after console release, thus making hyped people buy twice
2) by infesting its multiplayer mode with microtransactions

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Meh. Less excited for this after playing red dead redemption.

 

[Morgoth]

This is from a Gamestar.de interview with Rockstar that has been reposted and translated @GTA forums:

- Since having an Open World is nothing special today and size doesn't make a game great (No Man's Sky), Rockstar Games set out to make their Open World different from any other. With Red Dead Redemption 2 they want to create the deepest, most detailed, believable and interactive Open World they have ever built. Everybody and everything needs to be believable, from the Barkeeper of the local saloon, to the pebble that descends a slope or tiny frogs hopping around. Small details, big difference.

- Rockstar's philosophy is that players in their open worlds are increasingly likely to lose themselves, distracted from their real tasks, but not torn from the gaming experience. Barrier-free games, you could say.

- If you set up your own personal camp in a dangerous area (for example near groups of people that don't like guests in their area), you will experience very different situations than before, because you are just in the wrong place, even if you thought you have been everywhere and seen everything

- Next to smaller buildings like a barn (that is in the building process on first sight, but will be finished when you come back later), villages and even towns will change over time

- If you complete a mission (for example with your gang members), you will see them returning to their daily schedule instead of just disappearing or walking nowhere with no specific destination. Every major character exists in the world, not just in missions. This is inspired by Michaels house and the life of his family, you could see your family in-game, not just in missions. In Red Dead Redemption 2 they are expanding on this idea.

- The transition from free-roam open world gameplay to mission and cutscenes will be even more fluent and seamless than in GTAV. All types of missions, cutscenes and the general open world should feel like organic parts of the same thing, there is no clear distinction between them like in other games.

- NPCs are unpredictable and believable in their actions and reactions, they have different temperaments. There will be shy people, who will give you their money without you even drawing a gun but also more aggressive people that will immediately attack you if you just antagonize them also without you drawing a gun. Some confident NPCs may ride just past you and ignore you, if you try to rob them. Some may shoot you, while others will first threaten to harm you. R* wants you to feel like you never know how this certain NPC will interact with you and with that R* wants to encourage you to test out different playstyles. You can be an honorable thief or a violent psycopath and the world will react accordingly, but you just never really know how they will react.

- R* doesn't want to call the world of Red Dead Redemption 2 a sandbox. Because in a sandbox, you can do whatever you want. Sure, R* wants to give you a lot of freedom, in their Open World you can do whatever you want, but only as long as it makes sense for Arthur, his story and the world itself. Nothing should break the immersion.

- There will be no "checklists-type of missions" like in Ubisoft games or Mass Efffect Andromeda. R* doesn't think in categories like 'content' and 'prefabricated content', they want to blur the lines between everything the player does in order to increase immersion. R* doesn't necessarily want you to know when you are doing a main or a side mission or when you are interacting with a main character or just an NPC, but they will inform you in a very subtle way about it.

- There will be many optional things to do, but R* wants them to be just as high-quality, engaging and fun as the main missions and you should feel like you never know what to expect. This will cater to all kinds of players: Those who want to rush the main story and those who want to do everything and still have a great experience.

- "Random sh*t that doesn't fit the context will not happen [in RDR2]": Random encounters aren't really random, there is a certain system in place that ensures those encounters make sense in terms of how far the players have progressed in the story, what they are currently doing and where they are heading to. The changing surroundings and random encounters provide content for the players that makes them loose themselves in the world in a very organic way and naturally provide gameplay for them (in contrast to the very forced 'checklists-sidequests' in other games).

- The areas in the game not only feel different because of the looks but also because of the different gameplay-mechanics only possible in that area (like different animations for traversing different terrain and flora or different objects to interact with). Since animations influence how connected you feel with the world, R* focuses on making them as believable and fluent as possible in every situation. For example there is an animation for Arthur stowing his weapons, which he had previously strapped on his back, in the halter of the saddle. And there are different skinning animations for different animals.

- Things you should do in the missions can be done in the open world: For example in Trailer #2 we see Arthur pushing a bank manager through the door. You can do exactly that with every other NPC in free-roam.

- The world is as realistic as possible, as long as it is still fun

- Even outside of missions and cutscenes you can listen in on conversations in your gangs camp - or approach them more closely so that the other outlaws can include Arthur in their chat. The camp, the atmosphere and the conversations should change noticeably in the course of the story.

- Instead of slaughtering animals (that are degraded to polygon objects) without hesitation, in order to be able to craft a larger wallet, the creatures in Rockstar's western game are living beings with - simulated - feelings. This should always be aware of the players when they press the trigger or let the arrow zoom. To kill animals quickly without much suffering you need to take your time to learn the right techniques.

- If you commit a crime and the lawmen have a hunch that you are the offender, they will first talk to you instead of shooting you instantly, and you can talk yourself out of the situation

- You can modify your weapons to enhance their stats

 

[vonAchdorf]

This is from a Gamestar.de interview with Rockstar that has been reposted and translated @GTA forums:

- If you complete a mission (for example with your gang members), you will see them returning to their daily schedule instead of just disappearing or walking nowhere with no specific destination. Every major character exists in the world, not just in missions. This is inspired by Michaels house and the life of his family, you could see your family in-game, not just in missions. In Red Dead Redemption 2 they are expanding on this idea.

It was a huge turn-off that once you completed a quest, the NPCs disappeared and revisiting locations was pointless.